Case 2:25-cv-00978-APG-BNW Document 105 Filed 10/14/25 Page 23 of 27
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
C. I deny the motion to strike affirmative defenses two, three, four, and five because the motion seeks to litigate the merits of the defenses rather than to strike them.
The defendants’ second, third, fourth, and fifth affirmative defenses are that Crypto’s claims are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity, official act immunity, discretionary act immunity, and the Tenth Amendment. ECF No. 38 at 16. Crypto relies on my rulings in Hendrick to argue that these defenses fail and should be stricken. The defendants respond that Hendrick did not resolve the defenses as they may apply in this case and that my order in that case is not final. I deny the motion to strike. If Crypto wants a ruling on these defenses, it should file a dispositive motion addressing them in the context of this case, rather than moving to strike them.
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
D. I strike the affirmative defenses asserting judicial and collateral estoppel because the answer does not give fair notice of the grounds for them.
The defendants’ sixth and seventh affirmative defenses assert that Crypto’s claims are barred by judicial and collateral estoppel. Id. Crypto argues that it does not have sufficient notice of the factual bases for these defenses. The defendants respond that some courts have held that pleading “estoppel” alone is sufficient to provide fair notice. An affirmative defense is sufficiently pleaded if it gives the plaintiff fair notice of the nature of the defense. See Simmons v. Navajo Cnty., Ariz. , 609 F.3d 1011, 1023 (9th Cir. 2010). The fair notice standard “only requires describing the defense in general terms.” Kohler v. Flava Enters., Inc. , 779 F.3d 1016, 1019 (9th Cir. 2015) (quotation omitted). It does not “require a detailed statement of facts.” Vanguard Dealer Servs., LLC v. Cervantes , No. 2:21-cv-01121- JAD-EJY, 2023 WL 3852404, at *3 (D. Nev. June 6, 2023) (quotation omitted). For example, the Ninth Circuit held that a plaintiff received fair notice of the nature of a statute of limitations defense because the amended answer stated only that the “plaintiff’s claims are barred by the
23
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs